<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 2, 2021, at 8:50 AM, Sylvain Baya <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" class="">abscoco@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="">Dear AfriNIC's Community, </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Hope this email finds you in good health!<br class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 2 juil. 2021 12:43 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" class="">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>> a écrit :</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br class=""></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Hi Owen, </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Thanks for your email, brother!</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br class="">
> [...]<br class="">
<br class="">
Assuming that even in the simple case of a single organization, it does meet the test, then one has to consider the following easy derivatives:<br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">...interesting!</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br class="">
An organization which happens to have a wholly owned subsidiary that is a broker<br class=""></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Questions: </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">~°~</div><div dir="auto" class="">•1] Would that org be bound to the RSA?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Unlikely.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">•2] Would it be compliant to the CPM?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Unlikely.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The subsidiary organization would not have a contractual relationship with AFRINIC.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>OTOH, in the simpler case above (single organization that is both an LRI in Africa and a</div><div>broker in (e.g. EU), the single organization would be a signatory and would therefore likely</div><div>be bound.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">~°~</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
An organization which isn’t a broker, but happens to be the wholly owned subsidiary of a broker<br class="">
</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">...same questions, here, as above :-/</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>The broker likely would not be, but the subsidiary organization would likely be bound until such</div><div>time as their membership was terminated/rejected.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Given that it's about registration of service, </div><div dir="auto" class="">remember RSA section 4. Conditions of </div><div dir="auto" class="">service...</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">...particularly:</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">b) Cooperation:</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">c) Applicant's use of the service</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Yes, but those only apply to registrant’s activities with regard to resources registered to them</div><div>by AFRINIC. The brokerage operation even within the same company would be independent.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> An organization which is owned by an entity which also owns such a broker<br class="">
etc.<br class="">
<br class=""> <br class=""></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Remember: AfriNIC has the right to </div><div dir="auto" class="">review the use of the service offered to </div><div dir="auto" class="">the resource members.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Yes, but the SERVICE in this case is the address registration of resources by AFRINIC to the member.</div><div>The brokerage activity in address resources from other RIRs are not subject to AFRINIC policies and</div><div>not covered by the RSA.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
For any “clear, objective, and transparent” version of such a prohibition, I’m pretty sure it’s relatively trivial to design a structure that is just grey enough to become “shaded, subjective, and translucent at best”.<br class=""> <br class=""></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">...imho, it just adds more work to AfriNIC's </div><div dir="auto" class="">Staff, to protect the regional pools of </div><div dir="auto" class="">INRs against "non-acceptable" uses...</div><div dir="auto" class="">being it out-of-region or not.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Why is AFRINIC at all responsible for regional pools outside of the ones under AFRINIC management?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The point here is that it is an absurd concept to prohibit companies that are both LIRs in AFRICA</div><div>and brokers from being members. It’s arbitrary, capricious, and illogical.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Also there is a way to report on non-</div><div dir="auto" class="">compliant behaviours...so AfriNIC's Staff </div><div dir="auto" class="">could benefit of a community collaboration.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Who said anything about non-compliant behaviors? I was commenting about the absurdity of someone’s</div><div>suggestion earlier that AFRINIC should terminate memberships of organizations that are address</div><div>brokers.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>